Charly_Owl

Did Deka say if this was intended behavior or not? I'd rather have their input on this before changing everything for the AKG.

Hi folks, Currently doing a bit of research on the MiG-21, and I'm not quite sure what the Low Altitude / Sidebeam Compensation Switch really does. The manual isn't exactly clear on that. The UP (Low Altitude) position of the switch appears to tilt the antenna up 1.5 deg for Low Altitude. In practice... what is the use of this mode? Is it to be used to avoid scanning ground clutter when you are flying close to the ground? The MIDDLE (Sidebeam Compensation) position of the switch appears to "clean" the image of the radar by removing the lower side lobes. Could anyone elaborate how this works practically speaking? Thanks in advance, Chuck

What profile are you using for the attack? (dive angle, release altitude, airspeed)

Yes. I thought I had fixed that typo. Obviously, I haven't. Fixing it as we speak. Thanks for the heads up.

Yay!

No offense taken.

Ah ok... the patch notes said they were fixed so I was wondering.

So... for those that have downloaded the update, what do they look like?

@BIGNEWY@NineLine This issue has plagued multiplayer servers since day one. I still get this issue occasionally after 20 minutes or so of flight, once in a while. It's been a constant annoyance, and I think the Sabre players have waited long enough. It's been five years. Would it be possible to have the devs set something up to test the issue? Is there any way the community can help ED nail this bug down? There must be something we can do. Many tracks were sent already, but we do not see any progress from our end. I don't think we're being unreasonable. Flying with no sound is a complete immersion killer.

They were never meant to be. However, most procedures should be up to date since they were reviewed by RAZBAM staff.

Hi folks, With the released DCS 2.7 version, the Hornet is becoming ever more complex. I originally wanted to wait for a few months before returning to it, but I felt like giving another push before the Great DCS Summer of 2021 comes upon us with new planes. The page count increased from 620 to 680+ pages... but I think it shouldn't increase much for the upcoming months, which will be quite busy for me. See first post for link. *** Changelog (4/05/2021): Added ATFLIR targeting pod section Added HARM Pre-Briefed Modes (Aircraft + HARM Lofting) Added HARM Self-Protect Pullback Sub-Mode Added radar Spotlight mode Updated radar TWS logic Typo fixes and other small corrections *** If you have any suggestions, recommendations or corrections, please let me know.

The FlyAndWire articles are criminally underrated. Really top material!

Any news? @Hiromachi

Hi folks! I recently noticed that there were lots of questions about players having issues with the Mirage's INS system since RAZBAM provided the v2.7 update. So I did a pass through the whole document to update it as well. RAZBAM provided valuable help throughout the revision process. Here is a list of the noticeable items: *** Changelog (1/05/2021): Removed Flood Radar mode Added RD (Route Désirée / Desired Route) Re-wrote ILS landing procedure with Synthetic Runway Updated INS (UNI) Alignment procedure Added NAV Master Mode clarifications Added Total Fuel Quantity (Détotalisateur) logic to refueling procedures Fixed multiple typos and errors Corrected Waypoint (But) coordinate entry format

Realistic 1960's tech is EXACTLY why I'm interested in the Hind and why the Apache leaves me relatively indifferent.

Crossing fingers for a released hotfix real fast...

Alright guys, I asked @BIGNEWYto clean up the thread so we can all move on.

Let's make a few things clear about this non-crisis: 1) Some users seem to think that the Harrier guide situation is some sort of retaliatory measure against RAZBAM. It's not. The Discord post means exactly what it says: I'm doing this on my own, and no one asked me to do it. It wasn't misquoted, it's just the unpleasant reality of things, and I've made my peace with it a long time ago. If the playerbase has issues with learning the updated Harrier, it's just not my problem. My decision to pull the guide from the public should be a no factor; my work is not a primary source of information by any stretch of the imagination and this responsibility rests solely on RAZBAM's shoulders. The same applies to every developer. 2) I'm not angry at RAZBAM at all. RAZBAM is a business, and the way they do things is entirely up to them, and them alone. They have their own priorities, and whether or not they align with mine is irrelevant. If their documentation update is postponed for a few months, it's their call, period. I have my own backlog of things to do, and it's only normal that my own priorities change as well based on what I have to work with and what I want to do. If I can no longer support a document, then there's no reason to distribute it knowing some parts of it are flat out wrong. 3) I never did these guides in the hopes of gaining praise or recognition. I don't care whether a developer appreciates my stuff or not; I didn't do it for them in the first place. It's the only way to keep a sane perspective on things.

Wait, that's illegal!

Just bought it today. Looks very promising!

The Harrier is currently undergoing major system reworks and RAZBAM staff has stated that they could not update their documentation for at least 6+ months due to manloading issues. Every patch brings new changes that are sometimes not adequately documented and/or spread across multiple forum threads. I tried to keep up with the changes for a few years since 2018, but I have recently reached a point where this is no longer feasible. I get PMs every week asking me why feature X works differently (or has been removed altogether) from the guide, and the list keeps growing with each new patch. Even I am getting confused with all the back and forth, to a point where I don’t know if I can trust any procedure on the Harrier. I asked RAZBAM staff on their Discord if their documentation updates and feature updates could be better synchronized since it would greatly help me bringing my guide up to standard for the playerbase. The answer I got does not lead me to believe that things will change for the coming months. I have two options in front of me: 1. Try to guesstimate things and increase the number and frequency of guide revisions, which leaves a lot of room for error (and can further confuse Harrier drivers) 2. Wait until RAZBAM’s design is finished and then resume work on the guide. So far, the only reasonable option is the second one. Therefore, the Harrier guide distribution is temporarily halted in order to avoid negative training.

Depends what kind of server you go on. The traditional airquake servers are totally not suited for helicopters, and I tend to stay away from those since I don't find them much fun at all. There are servers where helicopters are well integrated in "plausible" scenarios, though. Blue Flag is a great example. I typically prefer to fly redfor and I've personally had a lot of amazing times with fellow rotorheads. Of course, you'll sometimes get sniped by a pesky Amraam once in a while, but having a fighter or two providing CAP typically keeps the enemy Hornets/Vipers busy enough to let you work. It's amazing what a few Mi-8s and Black Sharks can accomplish if they work together. Any time the frontline moves, an airfield is captured or a FARP is repaired... odds are that a bunch of players had to cooperate to make it happen. Some of my all-time greatest DCS memories include an assault on Incirlik with 3 Mi-8, 2 Black Sharks and a Su-25... we literally blasted aircraft on their takeoff roll and inserted infantry in their hangars. What a rush of adrenaline that was! I also remember fondly of an epic night with a bunch of Mi-8 players spent "building" (thanks to CTLD scripting) an intricate network of SAM sites in the valleys South of Beirut... grinding a Blue offensive to a halt. There's plenty of potential in multiplayer, provided you find the right bunch of people to fly with and a scenario that's appropriate for your mission type.

"Biased"? Nope.

Will the Mirage changes be documented in the RAZBAM manual?

Oh, I've seen my share of people who are convinced that they know better because they can run a few procedures and find typos. More often than not, their tune changes once they actually have to write the whole thing... from scratch... on a product that is still in development... where not every system is fully completed yet... on data (or lack thereof) that might be subject to interpretation... within a tight deadline... and not necessarily in their mother tongue. Feel free to reach out to ED staff members if you want to "show them how it's done", by all means. However, I'm not quite sure how far this attitude will get you. Respectfully, I think you mean well, but dismissing the task of documenting a complex simulation product as something that's just "easy" appears to me as ill-informed at best.